Stop the presses! "Famous Rich Guy Thinks Taxes are Bad!""Wealthiest Company in the History of Human Existence, Wants a Tax Break!"
Has there ever been a billionaire who didn't think the tax laws were bad or outdated?
Sorry, you're taking a very childish approach here. In case you haven't been paying attention — at all! — Tim Cook is not a typical rich guy, and Apple is not a typical corporation.
Deal with the facts. Thirty-five per cent is ridiculous, outdated, in the age of global economy.
As though they would actually pay anywhere near that. What a joke.
Cook is correct about the tax code being onerous and anti-business, but he supports and pals around with those politicians who would most likely drain all US companies of their combined wealth to grow government. Tim needs to re-think the people and party he supports. Even Steve Jobs supported irresponsible Democrat policies, while acting like a responsible businessman.
Please provide the last time the GOP cut government. This tired lie in done.
Cook, like any other CEO, has every right to lawfully take advantage of our tax code. Their first obligation is to their shareholders and the Company. The problem lies with the antiquated tax code, not Apple.
Top right; the little gear. Never mind the 18 trillion in new spending!
Pure BS. Please explain how the GOP candidates are going to pay for a wall across the entire continent, their new wars in the middle east when we owe trillion on the last ones they started, and all the new tax breaks they want for the rich corps who already don't pay.
Please provide the last time the GOP cut government. This tired lie in done.
So we stop voting for RINOs. What’s the problem? You really want to pretend that an ideology doesn’t exist because people who lie about having the ideology refuse to abide by it?
Please provide the last time the GOP cut government. This tired lie in done.
So we stop voting for RINOs. What’s the problem? You really want to pretend that an ideology doesn’t exist because people who lie about having the ideology refuse to abide by it?
Government isn't the problem, Billionaires BUYING the government to work for them and not us IS.
I am not sure if those are fact, but people who dont seems to understand could check it out themselves,
Apple paid more Tax to US then any other US company. And its Tax rate in US is ridiculously high. Unlike Many, if NOT ALL, other US company tends hide and doge even their US tax, ( not intentional made Tax ).
Even if you take those International Routing Tax loop hole, Apple still paid the largest PERCENTAGE of tax compared to all other company like Microsoft and Google. Not amount, since Apple made more revenue then the two combined, but actual percentage!
I am actually very unhappy as an Apple Shareholder how Apple has been the paying the best percentage in local US tax, and paying the best in International Loop hole taxes, as well as the best International company paying their respective tax in foreign market, AND STILL get most blamed due to catchy headlines.
Now on to International Loop hole, if you think Apple, as an US company should paid Tax for the money they made Internationally to BOTH US and those respective countries government. That is fine by me, because we will have a different point of view.
i was going to +1 you until the nonsense about Bernie Sanders. i havent heard Sanders state his opinion on repatriating. further, Sanders is the only candidate who 1) voted against the wars. 2) voted against the Patriot Act. 3) is opposed to domestic spying. he does support increasing SS and payroll taxes so billionaires dont pay in at the same exact level as i do, and im fine with that because its fair.
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton both want to put in place measures to try to prevent "inversion" transactions in which US companies merge with foreign companies to essentially change their "citizenship" and no longer be subject to repatriation taxes.
the inversion nonsense isn't the same as repatriation at all. inversion is a scam.
i was going to +1 you until the nonsense about Bernie Sanders. i havent heard Sanders state his opinion on repatriating. further, Sanders is the only candidate who 1) voted against the wars. 2) voted against the Patriot Act. 3) is opposed to domestic spying. he does support increasing SS and payroll taxes so billionaires dont pay in at the same exact level as i do, and im fine with that because its fair.
pretty sure Rand Paul also did all of that
Sanders is the only candidate that did those things.
Tim hasn't been using his Apple Watch fitness app. Looking a bit fat there.
it's called a slowing metabolism and decreasing muscle mass. part of this thing called "age".
Myth. Resistance training along with taking 0.8 to 1.8 grams of protein per kg of weight resolves muscle mass loss with age. Tim Cook actually looks fairly old and out of shape for someone that is only 55.
it's called a slowing metabolism and decreasing muscle mass. part of this thing called "age".
Myth. Resistance training along with taking 0.8 to 1.8 grams of protein per kg of weight resolves muscle mass loss with age. Tim Cook actually looks fairly old and out of shape for someone that is only 55.
not myth. you WILL lose muscle mass as the decades increase. you can resist it with strength training, but it's inevitable.
If I understand correctly the one who will ultimately be in trouble with the EU, if anyone, will be Ireland rather than Apple.
Certainly many countries including the UK are working on trying to change their taxation systems to make it harder/impossible for companies to avoid tax in the manner they currently do.
As for the US repatriation rule, it is really quite baffling that it hasn’t been changed. As pointed out, all it achieves is forcing companies to invest overseas, or even more oddly, borrow money in the U.S., secured by the money overseas, as that’s more cost effective than bringing the money home.
Ireland if found guilty will be in trouble but then will be forced to claim back all the unpaid tax from Apple. The buck stops with Apple (if you pardon the pun)
Apple should do a reverse takeover of another company offshore and move the headquarters to a country that does not tax on worldwide income (now that worldwide income > US Income). As a foreign company with US operations they would probably be better off.
I really don't think the real picture is being seen here by ANYONE. This should not be about where the money is kept, or where the money is earned.
The simple point is this - Apple does almost all of its Research and Development in the US. They give a contract to Foxconn to build devices matching specs they have set. Foxconn loads the software for this on the phone, and charges Apple for the hardware, the assembling costs, etc. All of these are legitimate expenses to Apple.
Now, irrespective of wherever in the world those phones are sold, the profit is belongs to, and is due to Apple in the US. If Apple has structured itself in such a way that there is an entity that is selling the products in a particular jurisdiction, then that entity should either be treated as a wholly owned subsidiary, with the profits rolling up to Apple in the US, or it should be treated as an arms length transaction, with the foreign entity paying Apple in the US a royalty for the rights to use its IP to sell devices somewhere.
The problem that is happening, is that Apple (and for that matter everyone else) has setup entities under dubious ownership guidelines, instead of making them wholly owned subsidiaries. This is an obvious sham - because all these entities are clearly wholly owned subsidiaries. On the other hand, these overseas entities, do not pay a reasonable royalty to the mother company in the US. If that royalty is set properly on an arms length basis - that is something that Apple would offer to any third party, then Apple is free to structure itself however it wants - but the money would still flow to the US, as royalties.
I think the entire confusion is that the IRS tax code is flawed. But it is not flawed in the way Tim Cook is implying it is.
It is flawed, because in this global age, it really should not matter where the money is kept. Irrespective of where Apple choses to keep the money, the money is still clearly the income of Apple, and should be taxed at the hands of Apple. Just give Apple credit for taxes paid elsewhere, and charge them full US tax irrespective of where they chose to keep the money. As simple as that. And don't give credit for things like VAT - which is actually paid by the buyer - and Apple just acts as a middle man to transfer the money to the government.
The very fact that Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc are bringing VAT into this conversation, is itself an indication of guilt. VAT has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and even mentioning the quantum of VAT paid, or including VAT in the amount of taxes paid, is ingenious. If anyone has a right to complain about VAT, it is the end customer - not Apple!
Now, if we have a complaint about the fact that US tax rates are high, that is a totally different complaint. I would say, if Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the others who keep money overseas to avoid US taxes were forced to pay those taxes by a simple rule change - that the tax is payable irrespective of where the money is kept, who knows - maybe the tax revenue would go up so much that the government would be able to actually drop rates for everyone.
It is fashionable to say the tax code is wrong - but if you really dig deep, you can find out where exactly it is wrong, and fix that.
And in continuation to my previous post - if Apple doesn't like this structure, where it is forced to pay full US taxes (with credit for foreign taxes paid), just because it is based in the US and does most of its R&D in the US, Apple should be free to relocate itself to any location of its choice, and do its R&D in that location.
The question comes about because Apple and Apple employees in the USA enjoy privileges and protection by virtue of being an American company and residents of America - whether you value it or not is not relevant. If they want to base themselves in the US, they have to pay the US government taxes on the money they make - irrespective of where in the world they make it.
Federal Tax Rates for US Companies are < 12%. Talk to GE about paying taxes. They received billions in a refund. Sorry, but the reason everyone is whining is they jumped all their accounting to overseas to hide as much of the wealth as possible, and now that they aren't getting a one time repatriation rate of 5% they cry wolf. It's a BS claim by Cook and he knows it. The company net profits since 2005.
Not gross, but Net Profits. If you think they've paid 1/10th of that in total taxes you are a fool.
In 2012 they reportedly paid $6 billion while net profits were $41.73 billion.
I don't feel an ounce of pity for them or any company raping the nations while tax payers in the US and abroad, per capita pay considerably more than they do.
We are talking about effective corporate tax Rates: The actual rates they pay:
I'm sorry, but the idea that the President should give them a 5% one time repatriation makes me want to puke.
You went off-shore to dodge taxes, not because they were abhorrently represessive, but because the tax code allowed it to be legally done and save you billions in the process. Eat it. Suck it up and pay back what you ethically absued.
Another person that don't know why GE got a refund that year. As though GE paid off the government to get it. So this some how cost the taxpayers.
FYI- Corporations pay their taxes by the quarter. Every three months, they pay an estimated 1/4 of what they think their taxes will be at the end of the fiscal year or what they paid last year. Which ever is greater. So for 3 quarters, plus any overpaid taxes the year before, that they chose to carry over, GE paid billions of dollars in estimated taxes. In 2010, the year they got the refund, GE had overpaid their taxes for the fiscal year and thus claimed a refund instead of carrying over the excess overpayment. That was the source of their refund.
To make it simple in case you still don't get it. If you paid the IRS too much money in the form of payroll deduction on every pay check during the year, at the end of the year, when you file your taxes, you should get a refund. Does that mean you paid no taxes for that year? So why do you think GE paid no taxes because they got a refund?
And then you some how think net income is net profit. The link clearly states "net income". Net income is after deductions but before any taxes paid. Net profit is after taxes. Reduce that $232.78 figure by all the taxes they paid to get the net profit over those years.
Plus, those profits are total profit, including overseas . Apple is not taxed in the US on overseas profits. Overseas profit have accounted for over 40% of Apple yearly profits since 2005. Right now it's over 60%. Apple do pay whatever foreign taxes are due on overseas profits. The IRS allows for this if the profits remains overseas and Apple is doing what all Worldwide corporations do, keep foreign profits overseas, so they don't legally have to pay any US taxes on it.
So using your figures of 2012 and $41.73B "net income" and $6B in taxes. That's comes to about $21B US profit (based on 50% overseas profit) and $6B US taxes paid. That's a rate of 28.6%. If you even bother to look at AAPL financials, you would learn that historically Apple pays tax rate is about 26% to 28%.
I bet you don't pay a 28% tax rate on your US income.
Come back when you know what you're talking about.
Stop the presses! "Famous Rich Guy Thinks Taxes are Bad!""Wealthiest Company in the History of Human Existence, Wants a Tax Break!"
Has there ever been a billionaire who didn't think the tax laws were bad or outdated?
American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he believed it was wrong that rich people, like himself, could pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.
The vast majority of WB income is in the form of long term capital gains. Which is taxes at 20%, no matter the income. So WB effective tax rate would naturally be less than most middle class that have little or no long term capital gains income. In fact, that is main reason for many of the wealthy tax payers have lower effective tax rate. I bet he wouldn't be too keen on increasing capital gains tax, as the, low long term capital gains tax, is one of the major benefit of investing in stocks like Berkshire Hathaway. And it's not the middle class that are buying BKR.A shares.
And what is WB going to do with his $50B fortune. He's going to do what the richest man in the US did, to avoid taxes on $50B, he's going to donate it the Bill Gates Foundation. So on one hand, he's complaining about the rich not paying enough in taxes and on the other hand he's going to avoid paying taxes on most of his $50 fortune.
Comments
Please provide the last time the GOP cut government. This tired lie in done.
Government isn't the problem, Billionaires BUYING the government to work for them and not us IS.
Good one.
Apple paid more Tax to US then any other US company. And its Tax rate in US is ridiculously high.
Unlike Many, if NOT ALL, other US company tends hide and doge even their US tax, ( not intentional made Tax ).
Even if you take those International Routing Tax loop hole, Apple still paid the largest PERCENTAGE of tax compared to all other company like Microsoft and Google. Not amount, since Apple made more revenue then the two combined, but actual percentage!
I am actually very unhappy as an Apple Shareholder how Apple has been the paying the best percentage in local US tax, and paying the best in International Loop hole taxes, as well as the best International company paying their respective tax in foreign market, AND STILL get most blamed due to catchy headlines.
Now on to International Loop hole, if you think Apple, as an US company should paid Tax for the money they made Internationally to BOTH US and those respective countries government. That is fine by me, because we will have a different point of view.
it's called decreasing muscle mass and slowing metabolism. part of this thing called "age".
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/sarcopenia-with-aging
as for cook, I'm under the impression he devotes far more energy into his career than most do or perhaps should. but, Apple.
The simple point is this - Apple does almost all of its Research and Development in the US. They give a contract to Foxconn to build devices matching specs they have set. Foxconn loads the software for this on the phone, and charges Apple for the hardware, the assembling costs, etc. All of these are legitimate expenses to Apple.
Now, irrespective of wherever in the world those phones are sold, the profit is belongs to, and is due to Apple in the US. If Apple has structured itself in such a way that there is an entity that is selling the products in a particular jurisdiction, then that entity should either be treated as a wholly owned subsidiary, with the profits rolling up to Apple in the US, or it should be treated as an arms length transaction, with the foreign entity paying Apple in the US a royalty for the rights to use its IP to sell devices somewhere.
The problem that is happening, is that Apple (and for that matter everyone else) has setup entities under dubious ownership guidelines, instead of making them wholly owned subsidiaries. This is an obvious sham - because all these entities are clearly wholly owned subsidiaries. On the other hand, these overseas entities, do not pay a reasonable royalty to the mother company in the US. If that royalty is set properly on an arms length basis - that is something that Apple would offer to any third party, then Apple is free to structure itself however it wants - but the money would still flow to the US, as royalties.
I think the entire confusion is that the IRS tax code is flawed. But it is not flawed in the way Tim Cook is implying it is.
It is flawed, because in this global age, it really should not matter where the money is kept. Irrespective of where Apple choses to keep the money, the money is still clearly the income of Apple, and should be taxed at the hands of Apple. Just give Apple credit for taxes paid elsewhere, and charge them full US tax irrespective of where they chose to keep the money. As simple as that. And don't give credit for things like VAT - which is actually paid by the buyer - and Apple just acts as a middle man to transfer the money to the government.
The very fact that Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc are bringing VAT into this conversation, is itself an indication of guilt. VAT has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and even mentioning the quantum of VAT paid, or including VAT in the amount of taxes paid, is ingenious. If anyone has a right to complain about VAT, it is the end customer - not Apple!
Now, if we have a complaint about the fact that US tax rates are high, that is a totally different complaint. I would say, if Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the others who keep money overseas to avoid US taxes were forced to pay those taxes by a simple rule change - that the tax is payable irrespective of where the money is kept, who knows - maybe the tax revenue would go up so much that the government would be able to actually drop rates for everyone.
It is fashionable to say the tax code is wrong - but if you really dig deep, you can find out where exactly it is wrong, and fix that.
The question comes about because Apple and Apple employees in the USA enjoy privileges and protection by virtue of being an American company and residents of America - whether you value it or not is not relevant. If they want to base themselves in the US, they have to pay the US government taxes on the money they make - irrespective of where in the world they make it.
FYI- Corporations pay their taxes by the quarter. Every three months, they pay an estimated 1/4 of what they think their taxes will be at the end of the fiscal year or what they paid last year. Which ever is greater. So for 3 quarters, plus any overpaid taxes the year before, that they chose to carry over, GE paid billions of dollars in estimated taxes. In 2010, the year they got the refund, GE had overpaid their taxes for the fiscal year and thus claimed a refund instead of carrying over the excess overpayment. That was the source of their refund.
To make it simple in case you still don't get it. If you paid the IRS too much money in the form of payroll deduction on every pay check during the year, at the end of the year, when you file your taxes, you should get a refund. Does that mean you paid no taxes for that year? So why do you think GE paid no taxes because they got a refund?
http://www.propublica.org/article/setting-the-record-straight-on-ges-taxes ;
And then you some how think net income is net profit. The link clearly states "net income". Net income is after deductions but before any taxes paid. Net profit is after taxes. Reduce that $232.78 figure by all the taxes they paid to get the net profit over those years.
Plus, those profits are total profit, including overseas . Apple is not taxed in the US on overseas profits. Overseas profit have accounted for over 40% of Apple yearly profits since 2005. Right now it's over 60%. Apple do pay whatever foreign taxes are due on overseas profits. The IRS allows for this if the profits remains overseas and Apple is doing what all Worldwide corporations do, keep foreign profits overseas, so they don't legally have to pay any US taxes on it.
So using your figures of 2012 and $41.73B "net income" and $6B in taxes. That's comes to about $21B US profit (based on 50% overseas profit) and $6B US taxes paid. That's a rate of 28.6%. If you even bother to look at AAPL financials, you would learn that historically Apple pays tax rate is about 26% to 28%.
I bet you don't pay a 28% tax rate on your US income.
Come back when you know what you're talking about.
And what is WB going to do with his $50B fortune. He's going to do what the richest man in the US did, to avoid taxes on $50B, he's going to donate it the Bill Gates Foundation. So on one hand, he's complaining about the rich not paying enough in taxes and on the other hand he's going to avoid paying taxes on most of his $50 fortune.